This is another thread based on an idea that was thrown around in a recent discussion. Do we really want an Internet where people are able to say whatever they want, anonymously, with no fear of prosecution, regulation, censorship or even law enforcement? Well, want it or not, it already exists...

The Free Network Project, which claims to be "Re-Wiring the Internet", is supposed to let you get away from what many people see as threats to freedom on the current information cul-de-sac.

Right at the top of the project's homepage is a delightful protect the little children quote, putting forward the X-Files-ish idea that an anonymous "they" are going to take "freedom of the press away from the Internet". This is what TFNP, or "Freenet", is trying to stop.

(I'm not usually one to be nit-picky, but as a point of fact, a "press" is a mechanical device for applying ink to paper, so I feel confident in saying that no press has ever been used for putting information on the Net. Oh, and the only people who have "freedom of the press" are people who actually own a press.)

By now, we all know that this sort of development will polarise opinions. Some of you will be thinking that it sounds c00l and l33t while others will be thinking that it's nothing but a haven for thieves and child pornographers. To help strengthen your viewpoint, whatever it is, have a look at what TFNP claims to offer:

Freenet does not have any form of centralised control or administration.

It will be virtually impossible to forcibly remove a piece of information from Freenet.

Both authors and readers of information stored on this system may remain anonymous if they wish.

Information will be distributed throughout the Freenet network in such a way that it is difficult to determine where information is being stored.

It's easy to see Freenet as a good thing... if you live in a fantasy world, or you happen to believe that governments in developed countries really do want to control their citizens' freedom of speech.

But if you've decided to bite the bullet and live in reality, you'll know that the only people who have anything to fear from Internet "censorship" are criminals. Therefore, it stands to reason that the only people who have any need for Freenet are... criminals.

It doesn't matter whether they are software or music pirates, people distributing illegal pornography or someone posting defamatory material, if anyone feels the need to do their thang anonymously and away from any legal accountability, chances are they shouldn't be doing it in the first place. So it's probably not a good idea for the rest of us to help them.

<QUOTE>But if you've decided to bite the bullet and live in reality, you'll know that the only people who have anything to fear from Internet "censorship" are criminals. Therefore, it stands to reason that the only people who have any need for Freenet are...criminals.
</QUOTE>

While my country, the United States, is trying to become the world's "cyberpoliceman", it doesn't hold jurisdiction on a lot outside of its borders (as its critics are fond of pointing out). What is banned here may not be the case elsewhere.

Obscene materials: what is "obscene" to you? As mentioned elsewhere in PC earlier this week, in France forms of nudity may be rated "G", while certain critical comments may be considered slander and against the law. French citizens interested in hearing critical, no-holds-barred comments about certain personalities or companies could benefit from Freenet.

France is just one example; hundreds of countries around the world have odd or obscure laws prohibiting certain types of information, or the distribution of such information (look at the US cryptological export laws). Detailed information about what's going on in Tibet may be deemed illegal by the Chinese government, but should it be censored?

Freenet, like the Internet as a whole, will be abused and exploited by individuals. I have no doubt you'll see porn, warez, MP3s and disinformation available there when the project matures. But it will be worth it.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>

<b>#2</b>, Valeyard:
<QUOTE>
When it gets out of hand, it'll be shut down. You'll see tons of legal action, and it will simply go away.
</QUOTE>
You said much the same thing about UCITA a year ago. Oops.

Good points all round, but...
<QUOTE>
Freenet, like the Internet as a whole, will be abused and exploited by individuals. I have no doubt you'll see porn, warez, MP3s and disinformation available there when the project matures. <b>But it will be worth it.</b>
</QUOTE>
That's the killer, ain't it? <b>Why</b> will it be worth it?

BTW, this bit in the article:
<quote>
the only people who have "freedom of the press" are people who actually <i>own</i> a press
</quote>
Long shot, but can anyone remember almost that exact phrase being used elsewhere recently? I read it somewhere and I can't think where.

<quote>
But if you've decided to bite the bullet and live in reality, you'll know that the only people who have anything to fear from Internet "censorship" are criminals. Therefore, it stands to reason that the only people who have any need for Freenet are... criminals
</quote>

Seems to me the big picture here is privacy.

Do you think you have any right at all to your privacy while on line? Do you really want people scouring this web site to see if you are saying anything wrong so they can take away your "liciense"? If we get some of those "protect the children" fanatics deciding the contect of this site, it wouldn't last a week. Then you'll be complaining because you can't say what you want to in your editorials, topics whatever.

I don't care about net porn or criminals personally. <b>But</b> I do not want microsoft or any other company tracking me online just like I don't want you to plant bugs in my house so you can hear me sing in the shower. I don't want to be harrased by junk mail so on and so forth. There are plenty of governments and groups that would be happy with the idea of being able to tell you whats ok to say or think (or post online), be careful what you wish for. You want censorship, you just want it to be Andy's censorship so everything in the world will turn out right (lol). It won't work that way. Whats the difference between Andy and a Tyrant in this regard? You both think your right and your results will be the same. I'm sure Communist China only do the things they do for "the good of everyone" officially. Thanks, but please don't help me.

On the other hand you can take the concept of "freedom" too far as well. I'll agree with that. Given the choice, and I am, I prefer to live in a place that makes it a little harder to restrict what I think and say even if that means someone else gets porn (big fucking deal). Warez? I could care less. You'll never completely stop those people. Same with shoplifting. It happens we all pay a higher price for it, as long as its not "inflated" then I think its worth it.

Refresh my memory about this UCITA thing...send me a link or something. I'm not saying I didn't say a similar thing...just that I dont recall it. Does anyone have the old PC stuff?

Maybe it's because the UCITA is MUCH different from what we're discussing here. Maybe it's because only 2 states have passed it (accordig to the news item I just found in a search). Maybe it's because it hasn't gotten out of control, yet or never will.

I'd LOVE to re-read my comments on it from the old PC, it'd be interesting to see them in the context of the discussion and compare my "predictions" to my current feelings on UCITA. (Which are non-existant) It'd also be nice to compare the differences between the UCITA discussed last year and the one being adopted now.

Honestly, I don't know much about UCITA, and don't remember discussing it. There's a vague hint of something...but nothing concrete.

In any case, assuming I said what you claim, how does that have any relevance to this topic? And how do we know what the end results of the UCITA will be?

Exactly...now back to the topic at hand (while I go try to read up on this UCITA thing).

<b>#10</b>, Valeyard:
<QUOTE>
Refresh my memory about this UCITA thing...send me a link or something.
</QUOTE>
You know the old PC threads are no longer online

Basically you said that UCITA would never be passed because people wouldn't let it.
<QUOTE>
Maybe it's because the UCITA is MUCH different from what we're discussing here. Maybe it's because only 2 states have passed it (accordig to the news item I just found in a search).
</QUOTE>
Six. So already it's 300% worse than you thought.
<QUOTE>
In any case, assuming I said what you claim, how does that have any relevance to this topic?
</QUOTE>
I mentioned it because you seem happy to react to potential problems by saying "it'll never happen". Just pointing out that on UCITA, you were wrong, which doesn't inspire me to trust your judgement on Freenet.
<QUOTE>
And how do we know what the end results of the UCITA will be?
</QUOTE>
Right - better to let bad things happen before we try to stop them.

<b>#11</b>, Valeyard:
<QUOTE>
"When it gets out of hand, it'll be shut down. You'll see tons of legal action, and it will simply go away."
</QUOTE>
Trust me, that's almost <i>exactly</i> what you said about UCITA. I have a very good memory for useless information. :)

As has already been pointed out nodes in "Freenet" will exist in the real world. Which means that law enforcement officers will be able to physically put their hands on the "backbone" equipment and then have their way with transactions going through the network. Because of their proxied architecture and peer to peer type of network you will be able, with sufficient enough effort, to track down and put the screws to people who use it for illegal purposes. You will be able to remove "information" from the network, it will just take a lot of effort and thus will carry a larger amount of punishment, via damages or costs.

However, saying that anonymity and the related idea of privacy, is not an issue for law abiding citizens is disingeneous. There are certainly situations where a person could reasonably desire to be anonymous but actually have a need to say something. Whistle blowers are of course the prime example of this.

<i>It doesn't matter whether they are software or music pirates, people distributing illegal pornography or someone posting defamatory material, if anyone feels the need to do their thang anonymously and away from any legal accountability, chances are they shouldn't be doing it in the first place. So it's probably not a good idea for the rest of us to help them.
</i>

I'm going to assume that you're playing devil's advocate here, Andy.

First of all, illegal != criminal. I'll give you an example. XYZ corporation is dumping mercury salts into the river upstream from where you live. Information is being surpressed by injunctions issued by judges in the pay of XYZ corporation, and local police (also on the take) are enforcing it by punishing anyone who trys to get the word out. It seems implausible, but in South America, or perhaps even some backwards counties in the USA, it happens. You're a resident of the area, and you cannot reveal your identity when you send out information fighting this. What you're doing is technically illegal, since you are violating the injunction, but you're not a criminal. In fact, you are quite the opposite. In this case, you have a very good reason to be anonymous, and you are acting for the good of your community and well being.

In about a year, I will finish my chemical engineering program I am taking. Part of our program is ethics. Now, we are bound by contracts and laws, but one thing that has been stressed is important to mention here: no matter who you're working for, if they are doing something completely unethical and harmful, you cannot just stand by. It may not seem relevant, but as a part of an industry that is often ostracized (indeed, the example I used in the previous paragraph occurs in more than one place), I believe that it is critical that information can flow in some cases anonymously. Now, I'm not saying that the last paragraph is a common occurance, but you can see where I'm coming from.

Another example would be living in a society of restricted political freedom, or one where there is a poor record of human rights treatments. In these cases, you might be breaking the law speaking about your government, but it would be for all the right reasons.

By the way, a current interesting resource is the Digital Freedom Network, http://www.dfn.org/ .. I recommend you check it out for some non-mainstream news.
<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>

The UCITA, from what I've read today appears to be a very vague law that shouldn't be passed in it's current state. I can see how I could have said something like, "It'll never pass"...and I probably did. It's going to take MANY years, MANY court cases and appeals before you can truly judge the impact, but I don't see it absolving software companies from ALL of their responsibilities, nor will it allow snooping.

At least in the US, some of the actions people are worried about are protected by the Constitution as well as other laws. The UCITA isn't a "good" thing, and it also shouldn't inspire the sort of knee-jerk fear I've seen today.

With regard to Freenet, it's a little bit different. They can't just run off and create an entity that's free from prosecution or intervention...it won't happen. The minute this thing starts getting out of hand, the violators will be prosecuted. Freenet may continue to exist and be "free", but that doesn't absolve it's users from bring prosecuted for crimes.

There's also NOTHING anyone can do about this until a law IS broken. Protest all you want, if I want a private little network to speak freely with other people, and I'm not funded by the government...I can do it. If it's then discovered that I'm plotting assassinations and bombings on my "free speech" network...it's going to be shut down.

<b>#14</b> "Seven Tacos" wrote...
<QUOTE>As has already been pointed out nodes in "Freenet" will exist in the real world. Which means that law enforcement officers will be able to physically put their hands on the "backbone" equipment and then have their way with transactions going through the network. Because of their proxied architecture and peer to peer type of network you will be able, with sufficient enough effort, to track down and put the screws to people who use it for illegal purposes. You will be able to remove "information" from the network, it will just take a lot of effort and thus will carry a larger amount of punishment, via damages or costs. </quote>

I believe that the Freenet project is a node based peer-to-peer system, so they actually have to go from node to node, install taps, and work there way back to the source.

<quote>However, saying that anonymity and the related idea of privacy, is not an issue for law abiding citizens is disingeneous. There are certainly situations where a person could reasonably desire to be anonymous but actually have a need to say something. Whistle blowers are of course the prime example of this. </QUOTE>

You beat me to it. The post I just made gives this scenario.

Now, it's easy for people to say, okay, let's just restrict Freenet to text and pictures. Well, human rights abuse documentation or even material released by whistleblowers can take many forms---text, pictures, video (i.e. police executing dissidents), audio...
<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>

One thing with all the recent Internet-related threads that no-one seems to have said, or thought of is:

<B>You can just walk away from it if you want to</B>

Right now, as much as the 'net is fun and I enjoy using it, and it has practical value for certain types of shopping, especially as I live in the back of beyond at the moment, it is NOT a requirement right now... you don't NEED it anymore than you need television.

Of course, it would be a sad day if I ever felt I had to do that... but if things got bad enough, I would.

I reckon it'll be a minimum of another five years before the Internet starts to truly invade our lives, so in a way it is good that this kind of thing is happening now... if a significant percent of the "Internet population" decided they'd had enough and just up and left, it would all colapse in on itself in two - three years or less...

If these kinds of bills were getting passed say ten years down the road, the Internet would be far more central to our lives, and this argument would probably be invalid.

<b>#16</b> "Valeyard" wrote...
<QUOTE>
There's also NOTHING anyone can do about this until a law IS broken. Protest all you want, if I want a private little network to speak freely with other people, and I'm not funded by the government...I can do it. If it's then discovered that I'm plotting assassinations and bombings on my "free speech" network...it's going to be shut down.

</QUOTE>

I think that terrorists would choose a little less public forum for plotting such things.
<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>

"I've done a little reading from both sides of the argument, I dont have all the information, I'm ACKNOWLEDGING that I don't have all the information, but my initial thoughts are..."

If people couldn't give ANY opinion without all the facts, I doubt PC would see many posts. Especially since you're not as good about checking your facts as you like to pretend.

Your attempt to debunk my OPINION, simply because I don't yet have all the information is silly.

Maybe it doesn't take me a week with a highlighter to grasp the overall picture. Maybe my initial understanding of the situation was better. Maybe my education and experience provided a better, more objective route to a conclusion.

Or maybe it's like I tried to say - I haven't drawn a conclusion, but my initial feelings are...

This Freenet is a giant cluster-f*ck of an idea. They sacrifice most of the things that make the Internet useful and comprehensible, add in a moderate level of anonymity and try to claim they're goal is to eliminate the supression of free speech. Please.

This is a confusing, nightmarish idea, that is doomed to failure. No searches, no way to update files, no way to edit or correct information...the list is almost endless.

It's like taking one big hard drive that anyone everyone can write to, then trying to mirror that drive to other drives that anyone can write to. With no indexing capabilities. The value of any data you DO find is severely diminished by the source.

<b>#22</b>, Valeyard:
<QUOTE>
Why so confrontational today?
</QUOTE>
Sorry, I'm not trying to be. It's just infuriating when people who don't know what they're talking about say things that may influence others. You're reckless.

(Remember what we just discussed by e-mail? Remember what you said - distorting facts doesn't matter if the underlying message is valid? That's a terrible attitude!)
<QUOTE>
"I've done a little reading from both sides of the argument, I dont have all the information, I'm ACKNOWLEDGING that I don't have all the information, but my initial thoughts are..."
</QUOTE>
Your initial thoughts are... likely to be flawed because they are not supported by a reasonable amount of accurate information.

The danger is that you write intelligently, and people will pay attention to what you say. I know that people pay attention to what I say so I make sure that what I say is either factual or clearly stated as subjective. You make matter-of-fact statements that are really just guesswork.
<QUOTE>
Especially since you're not as good about checking your facts as you like to pretend.
</QUOTE>
Petty and invalid.

It's funny to see this as a PC topic...during my disasterous, 20 hour ordeal that was my flight to E3, I sat next to a guy that contributed encryption code to this...

We got into this whole discussion, and it really seems to me like this will be the Napster from hell...you can't stop someone from downloading anything, because nobody can be tracked. You can't find out what they're downloading because it's encrypted, and you can't shut down the servers, because there isn't a central location - it's too widely distributed.

<b>#26</b> "Andy" wrote...
<QUOTE>Remember what you said - distorting facts doesn't matter if the underlying message is valid? That's a terrible attitude!)</QUOTE>

I didn't say it didn't matter, I said it didn't invalidate the point of the article. I specifically said I didn't approve of distorting facts. (Though re-reading it and checking some facts leads me to beleive that the author didn't distort as much as you may think...but we'll get to that later.)

<QUOTE>Your initial thoughts are... likely to be flawed because they are not supported by a reasonable amount of accurate information.</QUOTE>

Agreed. I never claimed to be the final word, or that I had all the information...but it doesn't automatically make my initial assessment invalid, even if it contradicts with your well-researched view.

<QUOTE>You make matter-of-fact statements that are really just guesswork. </QUOTE>

I expressed an opinion that was based on the facts up to that point. I stand by it until I'm proven wrong, or until the facts force me to change my mind. From what I've seen, there's just not enough information to make any other decision about UCITA. It's too vague, too young and there are too many other established laws that will determine the actual scope of this one.

<b>#26</b> "Andy" wrote...
<QUOTE><QUOTE>"Especially since you're not as good about checking your facts as you like to pretend."</QUOTE>
Petty and invalid. </QUOTE>

Petty? Sure...call it backlash for your comment. Invalid? Hardly. You've been caught on factual errors and illogical leaps in the past. Not all the time, not even exceedingly often, but often enough to be as "reckless" as you accuse me of being.

The people behind it, idealists, paranoid users, and countless warez/pornography guys, most likely. The same people you mentioned in the topic.

I'm not disagreeing with you on this one. I just don't think it's going to last, or at least it won't be a big problem. Regardless of how "free" and "anonymous" they think they are, they're still subject to the same laws as everyone else.

It may be an "underground" element of society, but they're still part of society.

Granted all of this is simply <b>my opinion</b>, but looking at the design and features of Freenet, and adding a little common sense leads me to the conclusion that this will only have a "niche" audience. Many of those "niches" represent illegal activity, and will eventually force legal action.

There are many utilities that would let someone perform the same illegal activities on the much more usable Internet, without much additional risk.

Freenet simply isn't a good idea. It's the extreme result of a few good ideas. It's near anarchy, which tends to destroy itself.

<b>#29</b>, Valeyard:
<QUOTE>
I didn't say it didn't matter, I said it didn't invalidate the point of the article. I specifically said I didn't approve of distorting facts. I specifically said I didn't approve of distorting facts.
</QUOTE>
Fair enough.
<QUOTE>
You've been caught on factual errors and illogical leaps in the past. Not all the time, not even exceedingly often, but often enough to be as "reckless" as you accuse me of being.
</QUOTE>
Actually, the person who spots my factual errors is usually me, and I always point them out, so it's not a case of me being "caught". That's a loaded word - it implies that I am trying to hide my mistakes.

Failing to be 100% accurate is not the same as failing to <b>try</b> to be 100% accurate.

Anyway, this is wandering towards being a discussion about me, so hopefully it will now move in a different direction. :)

<quote>I hate to be the one to point it out, and I'm sure I'll regret it...but "he" is back. Or else someone's playing a sick joke. </quote>The fact that the email and WWW addresses are the same as both El Asso Wipo's [in his various incarnations] kind of suggests the latter.

<b>#36</b>, VeeSPIKE:
<QUOTE>
But in regards to what I am really posting about, if either of you still have a working copy of CrapSpy .96, I can send you the thread from PC2 regarding UCITA.
</QUOTE>
I don't. Val?

Or perhaps Craig has still has a copy that he could send me?

But to be honest, I'd rather just drop it. This thread was becoming a little too personal (my fault, not Val's) and I'd prefer to avoid that sort of thing.

But to be honest, I'd rather just drop it. This thread was becoming a little too personal (my fault, not Val's) and I'd prefer to avoid that sort of thing. </QUOTE>

I don't have a copy. Never used it during the last version. :(

And I'll share the blame, Andy...never claimed to be perfect, just close. :)

If we CAN get an old copy of crapspy, I'd love to get my hands on some of the old threads...not to continue this discussion on the site, but I'd like to weigh my thoughts at the time against what I think now...on several topics.

This is a confusing, nightmarish idea, that is doomed to failure. No searches, no way to update files, no way to edit or correct information...the list is almost endless.

It's like taking one big hard drive that anyone everyone can write to, then trying to mirror that drive to other drives that anyone can write to. With no indexing capabilities. The value of any data you DO find is severely diminished by the source.

I deleted about 6 paragraphs from this that I can easily sum up:

This is a stupid idea.

-Valeyard </QUOTE>

What they're trying to do, if it is what they claim, will have difficulty working. I'm sure they've designed it so that it is hard to block---if it succeeds, places like China and Iran and Saudi Arabia and other oppresive regiemes will just make people access the internet through proxies only...i.e. no connections to anything else. Some of them already do this, to an extent.
<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>

<b>#30</b> "Valeyard" wrote...
<QUOTE>I just don't think it's going to last, or at least it won't be a big problem. Regardless of how "free" and "anonymous" they think they are, they're still subject to the same laws as everyone else.</QUOTE>
Actually they aren't neccessarily subject to the same laws. There is nothing preventing anyone from setting up a server in a country which allows these sorts of activites. Failing that they could set up a server in space, in international waters, etc. It may sound extreme but commercial space-flight, satellite communication, and packet-switched radio (cellular) networks are just getting started.

In any case this is really not much different than setting up a private network, a practice which has existed for nearly 30 years. It can and will last.

Now you're making me paranoid. When? Nothing from this IP should have, this is home (obviously) and its just me. I've never even been to your website that I know of, I certainly haven't tried to send you files.
I'm a Chemical Engineer by training, though I've taken up programming recently, so I'm afraid the h4x0r angle is well beyond my grasp. If theres anything I can do to assuade your paranoia/currosity please feel free to ask. Its odd that its my ip, I agree. Hmmm...